Misplaced Pages

Talk:Vladimir Putin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:39, 11 May 2012 editLothar von Richthofen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,066 edits →Not a forum: smh← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:59, 6 January 2025 edit undoMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors130,020 edits →Is he a dictator or isn't he?: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to bottom}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header |search=yes }} {{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|e-e}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=B |listas=Putin, Vladimir
{{Not a forum}}
|politician-priority=high |politician-work-group=yes |activepol=no
{{Article history
}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=Top|pol=yes|sport=yes}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=c|importance=high}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=02:47, 15 April 2008 |action1date=02:47, 15 April 2008
|action1link=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination |action1link=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination
|action1result=failed |action1result=failed
|action1oldid=205589732


|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
Line 20: Line 18:
|action2oldid=232099536 |action2oldid=232099536


|currentstatus=FGAN}} |currentstatus=FGAN

|otd1date=31 December 2012|otd1oldid=530419617
|otd2date=2020-12-31|otd2oldid=997332555

|itndate=24 February 2004
|itn2date=3 March 2008
|itn3date=24 September 2008
|itn4date=5 March 2012
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Putin, Vladimir|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=high |politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top |pol=yes |sport=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Annual report|]|25,808,228}}
{{Top 25 Report|Mar 2 2014|Mar 18 2018|Jul 15 2018|Feb 20 2022|Feb 27 2022|6 Mar 2022|Mar 13 2022|Mar 20 2022}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Yelena Dzhanova
| title = Loser.com is now redirecting visitors to Vladimir Putin's Misplaced Pages page, the website's latest target in a list that includes Donald Trump and Kanye West
| org = ]
| url = https://www.businessinsider.com/losercom-website-redirecting-visitors-russian-president-vladimir-putin-wikipedia-2022-3
| date = 19 March 2022
}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> <!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 6 |counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{ITN talk|3 March|2008}} {{All time pageviews|77}}
{{ITN talk|24 September|2011}}
{{ITN talk|5 March|2012}}

== Photo in the infobox ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-valign="top"
!|Current picture
!|Alternative picture
!|Actualia's proposed picture
|-valign="top"
||]
||]
||]
|-valign="top"
!|Sematz's proposed picture
!|Sematz's proposed picture2
!|Here is the new official portrait.<br>] (]) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
|-valign="top"
||]
||]
||]]
|-
|}
Why are some people trying to change the photo in the infobox? Please could be have a discussion about it, rather than unilateral changes from the current picture.--] (]) 08:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:The second photo is newer, but it looks downright ridiculous—more like a model than a world leader. I have no idea who the hell thought that would be a good "official" picture. The whole eyebrow thing going on there is really too much. If we can find a newer picture that does not look like a fashion photo-shoot, then that would be fine. ~~ ] (]) 15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:Not to mention it is low-resolution and poor-quality. ~~ ] (]) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
::I change the photo today because the photo was old. I think the new one (that I posted) is more comfortable. ] (]) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I like Actualia's. The former one was too old and, frankly, looked like it was posed by the same folk that take portraits of young women seeking husbands over the Internet. The latest one is a suitable and current photo showing Putin seriously engaged in the business of government. ]<small> ►]</small> 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::This is a low resolution random picture. All major politician articles tend to use large official portraits. There is no point not to do it here. In the ] article there is still a 2003 portrait (that is older than current Putin's official portrait), and in ] article there is 2009 portrait, despite more up-to-date images are available. I restore the old photo per Toddy, Lothar, per quality of the image and per the existing tradition. ] ] 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
::::The portrait should reflect the heyday of a politician's activity and political importance. In case of Putin it is his presidency. If they make a new official portrait when Putin is inaugurated in May, than we should use it. But so far the available portrait should stay. ] ] 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree, we should use the official portrait. If a new one is made after his inauguration, we should switch to that. ] (]) 20:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Any reason we can't have both? The Bush analogy does not work, he's no longer in office, so his presidential picture is a time capsule. The Obama analogy doesn't work because much less time has passed. Putin looks almost girlish in his ''prior'' presidential portrait, the article needs a decent picture which is more recent. If editors are fixated on keeping his official portrait (at least date it, then), we need to have a more representative picture somewhere in the article as well. ]<small> ►]</small> 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::There are lots of more recent pictures of Putin in the article. Besides, the pictures proposed so far as alternative portraits are obviously of poor quality. And as I said, the subject should be illustrated at it's heyday. ] ] 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::{{redacted}}
:::::::::Note that a sockpuppet investigation has confirmed that Ocnerosti is a Confirmed match to ].--] (]) 20:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::...and that Amphelice is, in turn, a sock of the ]. ~~ ] (]) 20:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm going to side with Greyhood on this one, surprisingly enough. I am of the mind that whatever portrait is be used should be an official portrait—it simply looks more encyclopaedic (at least to me). This discounts the last two, as they are both candids. The "alternative" picture—though it is "official"—is complete shit, to be blunt. Thus, we use the better of the two. And really, there isn't any reason not to. Sure, his hair is a bit thicker and his face a bit more youthful, but he is still easily identified as our dear Volodya. I see little reason to change to any other. ~~ ] (]) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, Sematz needs to cut it out with the image replacement. He's been reverted numerous times now, and continues to change the image in spite of the hidden warning I placed by it. He does not respond to any invitations to discussion. There is a point where even good-faith editing becomes disruptive, and he is nearing it. ~~ ] (]) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

== Small edits please, everyone ==

Could people restrict themselves to making edits to single sections at a time, please? contained a copyvio (about the environmental activities of Putin) but also some other unhelpful edits, and could not be reverted because subsequent edits meant it couldn't be undone. If we edit small portions at a time, it would help other editors react to our edits. Continuing editing like this would be, IMHO, not constructive and against the spirit of collaboration. Persistently doing so would even be disruptive. ] (]) 21:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:Malick, why you constantly point out smallish things which you could easily fix instead of reverting and removing? There is just one sentence which has significant differences from the original - you could have added more differences if that was not enough for you - that would be more constructive and friendly. Thanks, I'll fix the wording myself, but it would be more constructive if you just do it instead of plain deletion. ] ] 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
::Copyvios are serious business around here. Make too many of them and you could find yourself banished for good; we recently lost a bureaucrat/ArbCom member in such a scandal.
::And Greyhood, if your intention is to make this into a GA-, A-, or FA-class article, you should be aware that having significant conflict between editors and edit wars can cause the article to fail a review. It is in your best interests to keep the environment as collaborative as possible—and if that means taking it one section at a time, I suggest you do so. ~~ ] (]) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I am always ready to discuss and resolve conflicts. I just hope that everyone would be constructive, would avoid unilateral removals of factual content justifying that by little easily fixable flaws, and would concentrate on discussing content rather than criticising other users on every possible occasion. ] ] 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:::It couldn't be undone because subsequently Greyhood edited parts of it, stopping a revert. I'm sure he knew that would happen. Just so others know, the copyvio was "Putin '''brought together 13 countries at a November 2011 conference endorsed by ]''', and '''raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the''' the endangered species." which, I'm everyone would agree, : "Not only did he '''bring together 13 countries at a November conference endorsed by WWF''' last year, but he also '''raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the''' soon to be extinct species." It's not for us to clean up your mess, Greyhood. You were lazy, and it's not good enough. ] (]) 22:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Well, 1) The sentence starts differently 2) the tense of the verb was changed 3) the date was inserted amid the first bolded bit 4) full names of the organisations were used instead of the abbreviations 5) two parts of the sentence were connected differently. Not enough? Well, please, fix it yourself - that would be easier for you as a native speaker. That would be constructive and friendly. Could you do that? ] ] 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Again, if you think what you changed was enough - please go back and read up on what is expected of WP editors. You clearly do not know.] (]) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Is constructiveness and friendliness expected from WP editors? ] ] 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

== "was better worded before" ==

In Malick's version the key part of the explanation of the amphorae incident, that the amphorae ''were placed by archaeologists for Putin "to experience what it was like to be on an expedition"'' is omitted. Obviously, such a serious factual omission hardly could be explained by the edit summary "was better worded before". The same goes for the lead - I've provided more detailed, descriptive and accurate account of Putin's public image - another "was better worded before" is a non-descriptive summary and does not explain the factual content removal - if the wording is flawed grammatically than fix it, but do not delete stuff on smallish pretexts. ] ] 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:As for the replacing of the key part of the explanation of the amphorae story with an extensive quotes which do not fit into the summary style of the article (and the section in particular) and which are clearly excessive in the context of the section which specifically and in detail illustrates "a long line of remarkable feats by Mr Putin" (what is the point of repeating that or writing about that at all when it is obvious from the context?) - well, that's really strange editorial choice, hardly justified by the "was better worded before" summary. ] ] 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
::The Telegraph newspaper, a respected paper may I add, analysed Putin's media portrayal in depth and it was worth quoting. I can see you don't like it (you must have removed that info about 6 or 7 times so far) but, sorry, it's some of the little real analysis of his image that we have in the article and is worth keeping. If you don't like my edit summaries, btw, just look at your vague ones and try to imagine how much others can infer from them. Very little. ] (]) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:::OK, Telegraph is respected and made a valid point, I agree. But what is the point adding that point in one particular part of the list, in a non-summary style, in a clearly excessive manner - the point is too self-obvious when we look at the context where it is placed? What is the point of doing that and removing factual stuff (the explanation why amphorae were placed there at all) given by the same respectable source? ] ] 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

::::In a "clearly excessive manner" - no, that's ''merely your opinion. In my opinion'' it's entirely relevant what is said. As for your suggestion of adding the explanation (that the amphorae were left to give him the experience of discovering something), my ] detector goes off the scale at that point, hence I didn't include it. If you need it spelling out, it's obvious that the amphorae were left for him to find to make him look good on TV, not to give him the "experience" of finding them. I think other editors also possess a bullshit detector and would dislike including that bit.] (]) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::When top politicians visit different places, such as industries, research teams etc, they are often offered to engage in activities such as "test a car produced at our plant", "drive our combine harvester" etc etc. It is normal internationally, and in Russia it is a typical practice performed by governors, ministers, presidents - though it very much depends on particular qualities and abilities of the top person. It is not "bullshit" at all but a usual reality - a VIP visitor promotes the place (s)he visits, and of course does self-promotion too. As for the "clearly excessive manner" - open your eyes finally and look at the entire section. The Telegraph summary may go to the top of the section but even there it would be a bit excessive. ] ] 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick continues edit summaries in the style "I liked the previous wording and it was stable". ]/] are arguments to avoid in contested situations. And the whole of the edit summary does not take into account the previously explained fact that "extreme sports" is a wrong generalisation, while simultaneously another wrong generalisation is pushed forward. Putin also tagged wild whales and a wild polar bear, and the single case with tiger is not clear enough. Naming all these situations "carefully staged" violates NPOV language. Of course all these were specially arranged to accommodate press and security, but mentioning this is pointless and non-neutral - we do not mention the necessary presence of bodygaurds and journalists when describing public actions by politicians. ] ] 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::The Telegraph analysis is probably the best bit of the whole section: the rest is just a list of ''amazing'' things Putin has done. As for it being routine to test cars... etc., well, yes it is. ''To pretend to make archaeological discoveries is not''. It was blatant lying on the part of Putin's PR machine and is highly notable. Finally, "carefully staged" is a perfect description (by somebody else, not me) - Putin's PR machine is working on another level to any other politician's. It is NPOV to mention it; claiming it's not just shows an inability to understand NPOV. ] (]) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The Telegraph analysis adds nothing new to what is already named at the start of the section and to what is obvious from the context. Then, does Putin and his PR machine actually pretend they made an archaeological discovery? As for the fact that "Putin's PR machine is working on another level" - well, the very fact that we have too make a specific mention of Putin's public image in the intro illustrates that it is "another level to any other politician's'. "Carefully staged" is not a perfect description and is non-neutral, because on one hand all PR and all public actions of any major politician are "carefully staged", and on the other hand - if this refers to some specific controversial PR actions - it is inappropriate generalisation because there are few such controversial actions, which constitutes no more than few percents or less than a percent of all Putin public appearances. ] ] 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::As far as I can tell only you are against the phrase "carefully staged". Everyone else has left it, seeing it as pretty fair. Me thinks your view is not representative.] (]) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::"Carefully staged" has been discussed only between you and me so far. But even if some people consider it to be a fair description for certain episodes, it is pointless, inappropriate and a logical fallacy to present it is as a generalisation. ] ] 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::That's merely your humble view. Consensus can decide. ] (]) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::You know that it was not uncontested and not stable addition in the first place. The current version also contains other factual inaccuracies, which you so inaccurately restored in an overt revert. Per ] we should act "with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research". If we can choose more factually accurate and neutral wording, there is no reason why we should not do it, especially in BLP case.
:::::::::::Consensus should be based on argumentation, you know. There are quite logical and factual argumentation presented by me - if you can present viable factual counterarguments rather than ]/], than we could reach reasonable consensus solutions. ] ] 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I side with Malick. NPOV does not mean that all material critical of a subject is to be removed, as Greyhood seems to view it. In fact, omitting such material would be a violation of NPOV by giving undue ] to non-critical positions. And in the case of our dear Volodya, criticism is a very significant part of his reputation. Please keep in mind that we are compiling a ], not a ]. ~~ ] (]) 21:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::], Lothar. We are not talking about removing criticism - there are many points of criticism in the article and I do not propose to remove them, and the suggestion that in my view "all material critical of a subject is to be removed" is plainly offensive to me. I have some editing experience and know the policies, Lothar. Some of the criticism in the article was actually added by me, so please do not misrepresent my position, do not put words in my mouth, and try to make more relevant and concrete arguments pertaining to the concrete points of the discussion.
::::::::::::So, you should specify on which issue concretely you side with Malick and discuss concrete things. Because we are talking about multiple issues. The issues discussed here are 1) correct and factual summary representation of information on Putin's PR actions in the lead (two controversial actions doesn't make the proposed generalisation correct - it would be like mentioning the shoe-throwing incident in the lead of George W. Bush article or making generalisations on the base of this single incident or few other funny stories with Bush) 2) excessiveness of description of one particular point in the list of adventures alongside the removal of the important part of the explanation of that story - I hope you agree that alongside a criticism the official answer to that criticism should be presented, and there is no point in repeating general background information already in the section. ] ] 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::], Greyhood. No one said all your edits are pro-Putin. ] :) ] (]) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::] and self-contradiction on your part, Malick ;). I've cited concrete part of what Lothar wrote above, and I found that concrete wording irrelevant, misrepresenting my position, and offensive to me as an experienced editor. And Lothar clearly wrote ''all''. Speaking of ], you should not make false generalisations based on cherry picking of isolated facts yourself. Neither you should cherry pick a small point and make overt reverts based on that. Nor you should cherry pick other editor's actions and make false generalisations. ] ] 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:{{od}}Forgive my hyperbole; I had not expected that you would be so sensitive to it. As to what I was agreeing with: the inclusion of "carefully staged" I do not find objectionable in the least, if we are to bring up VVP's animal adventures. You make the point that all PR is staged (''on one hand all PR and all public actions of any major politician are "carefully staged"''), then you turn around and say that we should not generalise about the staged-ness of VVP's PR actions (''it is inappropriate generalisation because there are few such controversial actions''). Which one is it? You seem to base the former point on the obviousness of PR being staged. It may be obvious to you, but what about to the general public? Let's say we have 13-year-old Timmy, who has to do a project on Putin for class. Timmy, being a typically lazy 13-year-old boy, goes to Misplaced Pages even though his teacher said not to. He reads the lead section, uses material from it, and goes to make his project believing that Putin really ''is'' some macho man who wrestles tigers or whatever. His teacher knows better, and slaps him with a grade penalty for presenting incorrectly generalised information from here. Is that a catastrophic thing? No, not really. Is it factually correct? Not "concretely". ~~ ] (]) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:Furthermore, your Dubya example is little more than a red herring. The shoe-throwing incident is nowhere near as relevant to Bush's image as Putin's manly man stunts are to his image. This image has been called into contention, but the wording of the lead doesn't make that clear; readers have to "read between the lines" or scroll down to that <small>(eyesore of a)</small> list to find that out. Even there, the wording is still rather evasive. ~~ ] (]) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::OK, thanks. I might have sound sensitive because your hyperbole was so obviously incorrect.
::I think that the shoe-throwing incident was relevant to Bush's image in the sense that it reflected how low his popularity fell towards the end of his presidency. Of course the incident was not a game changer - the game was already lost. Just a cherry on the top of the cake. And, notably, that was not even restricted to Iraq - that was international. I remember that show-throwing flash games were popular at that time in many languages and it was widely discussed for quite a period of time, with additional incidents of the kind..
::But my point was that it would be incorrect to make generalisations from few episodes. Bush'es ratings were low because of multiple serious reasons, and as well supposedly because of too many other funny incidents (the article ] is really too short). But if there was just one or two or three or several incidents of the kind (compared to hundreds of public actions by a politician in total count) making generalisations based on few episodes would be wrong.
::I explained why I think the wording "carefully staged" was incorrect, in two understandings of "staged". In the sense where "staged" means "pre-arranged and prepared" for the convenience of journalists and security, everything or almost everything in public life of every major politician is "carefully staged". In the sense where "staged" could mean "stunted in fraudulent way" - we really need more evidence to make such generalisations.
::Your schoolboy story is adorable, but note that the current wording does not say that "Putin really is some macho". It says that "In the media, Putin often projects an outdoor, sporting, tough guy image" which means that Putin projects certain image in the media - it is a fact. How this image corresponds to reality is a different question. At the very least, the obvious consensus both in Russia and elsewhere is that Putin is 1) a sporting guy 2) political hard-man 3) loves making PR with his sporting and other adventures. I do not think that the wording ''"this popular image, however, has occasionally been criticised as being "staged"'' is accurate. Too much of that image is obviously not staged, and it was not Putin's projected image on the whole which was criticized, but rather some specific episodes, and the main point of criticism of those episodes was that Putin does too much PR and does it in a stupid way. I've tried to change the wording to reflect this. ] ] 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We should not argue whether we should have precisely wording A or wording B, especially when factual accuracy is in question. If possible, we should find wording C which would be both factually accurate and "better" for all. Currently I've applied my wording, because it is factually accurate (does not use the term "extreme sports") and descriptive (accurately summarizes most aspects of Putin's projected public image). If someone could propose a better wording, OK, lets discuss it, but do not revert to the obviously factually incorrect and non-descriptive version. Such reverting is non-constructive. ] ] 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: Putin hasn't visibly aged more than 5 years in 30 years. I believe he may be an immortal robotic agent sent by the illuminty (the Illuminati but with a fresh aftertaste) bent on destroying the universe. Someone check on this, please. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Tagging in the article ==

I suggest everyone to familiarize themselves with ]. The point of tagging an article is enhancing constructive work and discussion, not expressing personal ].
*''Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article, and auto-categorize pages so that patrolling editors can aid their talent to the problem.'' No patrolling editors came here thanks to the NPOV tag which was in the article for about a month, and only one Latvian IP came here without any concrete proposals, without actual intent to engage and with a very poor argumentation. That is quite telling.

*''They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied.'' I request such rationales and lists of issues for any tag added to the article or one of the sections, otherwise having tags without clear constructive purpose is not helpful.

*''As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.'' Without concrete proposals to amend the perceived faults tagging lacks a constructive point.

*''It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article.'' Tagging for the whole article without identifying concrete places and issues is not helpful. If few minor points are contested, this does not justify tagging the whole article.

*''Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page.'' The initial placement of the NPOV tag resulted in some discussion concerning images - and since then 1) some of the images were removed 2) no further concrete proposals were made or concrete major issues identified. As apparently the most productive and therefore constructive editor here, I am interested in further constructive work on the article. Name the concrete issues on talk, make concrete proposals, and we'll try to work on them and discuss them. This is called constructive work.

On this basis, I remove the NPOV tag. Do not reinstate it without following the clear recommendations of ] and my requests above - we need constructive work, not disruption and making points. Name concrete issues and identify concrete places in the article, start discussing them on talk, and even without tagging (which has obviously been unhelpful in drawing more editors here) we could improve the article. ] ] 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

== Why is there no CRITISISMS at all? ==

This is a laughable article. Putin is currently hated in Russia by every thinking person. Numerous anti Putin protests were held during 2011-2012 winter. Putin is jokingly called "Tsar", system he build is based on corruption, often called "feodal". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The article sticks to the facts. It does not seem favourable to Putin. It is a neutral POV article.--] (]) 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::It clearly does "seem" so to this guy. The IP geolocates to Russia as well, so you'll have a more difficult time chalking this one up to Western agitators or whomever.
::To the IP: could you provide some examples of parts of the article that are too favourable to Putin, or some criticisms (with ]) that you think should be included? ~~ ] (]) 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, please do this.--] (]) 09:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::*How about an "Allegations of authoritarianism" section, or something similarly worded? We have a "Recognition" section... would only be fair to have the opposite. ] (]) 12:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::*There is ] section for both positive and negative general assessments. Specific criticisms about specific policies should go to specific sections. "Allegations of authoritarianism" section is a dubious idea at the time when Russia goes through liberal electoral reforms, when today the new law on governors' elections was adopted by State Duma, and when the country has greatly improved it's ] position in the last few years, with citizens already allowed to directly take part in new legislation development and new legislation control online; currently, the government develops infrastructure and legislation which would allow citizens to initiate new laws proposals online, with the proposals which collect over 100,000 signatures to be reviewed and possibly implemented by the government. All this should go to the Domestic policies section, I think. ] ] 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:] Note to admin: the one who suggested anti-Putinism here has posted this link on several sites, , and appealed to those who share the same oppositional views to add anti-Putin, propagandistic material into article. Just be aware that this doesn't come out of pure desire of "democracy". ] (]) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::Admin? What admin? This is a standard talkpage discussion, not a noticeboard or mediation. Get over yourself. ~~ ] (]) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Tone down your rude tone, mister, admins read talkpages too., and one can address them as objective contributors. ] (]) 18:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Yeah, they sometimes ''read'' them, but there's no need to address this as some sort of appeal to them as if it was a requested move or AfD, where an admin would ''actually intervene''. ~~ ] (]) 20:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2112167,00.html
His whole career is based on exposing Putin's schemes and corruption in Russia.

1999 bombings connection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Blowing_Up_Russia:_Terror_from_Within

Mass protests against vote manipulations at 2011-2012 elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/2011%E2%80%932012_Russian_protests

There are numerous sources about Putin's connection to Saint-Petersburg's organized mafia and "cooperativ Ozero" - Putin's friends who all became billionaires after he came to power. You can find all information in Navalny's livejournal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9100388/Vladimir-Putin-the-godfather-of-a-mafia-clan.html

Magnitsky's death
http://en.wikipedia.org/Sergei_Magnitsky
http://russian-untouchables.com/eng/

Honestly there are so many things that should be said, there should be the whole article about Putin's criticisms.
This video sums it up. It's in Russian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLJeG-YmXw <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please could you register as an editor, and then make the edits yourself. If you need help with something, you can ask on this talk page.--] (]) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::But are we agreed on a dedicated section? Called "Criticism" or something more inspired? ] (]) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I think so. Some material from the ] article can I think be pulled in here as well. ~~ ] (]) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::That article mostly consists of outdated forecasts and ever more outdating criticisms, speculations, opposition rants etc, with some unsuccessful attempts to explain what is "Putinism" factually. ] ] 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not very good at writing in English, as you already figured out I'm from Russia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:A lot of the editors working on this article are Russian as well. You don't need to be fluent in English to contribute here; many respected contributors and even administrators speak English as a second or even third language. You sound like you have some reasonable points to bring to the table. You should consider making an account. ~~ ] (]) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Maybe not in-Russia-now Russian, but certainly with very strong connections there. Beside the point, really. ~~ ] (]) 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Putin, not about Navalny or Magnitsky or conspiracy theories. Protests are mentioned and have the weight they deserve, just an episode in the long story. Navalny, a controversial blogger and advocate who apparently never won a single case of note and who acquired his advocate license in a dubious way, "exposing Putin's schemes and corruption in Russia" is a joke. His most publicized anti-corruption project, Rospil, has been able to exist only thanks to Putin's legislation which required to publish the information on all state purchases online, and which was intended specifically to allow and facilitate the public control of state expenditures. And Navalny was not able to "expose" anything significant and actionable. There is enough stuff to write a long article on Navalny's own "schemes and corruption". ] ] 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
*Greyhood, we know your view before you even publish it. Just so you know and can save yourself the RSI ;) Unfortunately for you, however, Navalny is notable - the figurehead of the opposition and its most widely-known face in the West. He's therefore worth mentioning. Putin, btw, is the most authoritarian leader in the 1st/2nd world (I'm leaving Belarus in the 3rd world...), so it's natural for his article to mention his authoritarian tendencies. ] (]) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
**Whether Navalny is notable or not, it is article about Putin. Such opposition figures as Zyuganov, Mironov and Zhirinovsky are much more notable, by the way. ] ] 04:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
**As for the "most authoritarian leader in the 1st/2nd world" and "leaving Belarus in the 3rd world", such radical and confused personal opinions are hardly relevant here. By all means, ] is heavily outdated, while by the old classification Belarus would most certainly belong to the 2nd world.
**Also, technically, Russian presidential power is not very different in scope comparing to French one. Then, just make few comparisons: 1) such persons as ] (recently sentenced for corruption) were in top-level politics for a time comparable to Putin's (and in fact much much longer if we include Chirac's premierships); 2) in Russia people typically are not get arrested just for insulting Putin like people are arrested (sometimes in a violent way) for insulting Sarkozy , 3) Russian electoral system is much more open than the French one, as shown by the recent elections (where apparently some pro-Sarkozy people were bussed into Paris btw ;) ) 4) in Russia there is "tandemocracy" while in France and many other "first world" states there is just one top-level all-dominating politician. By any meaningful, technical, factual comparison Russia offers much more choice, pluralism, freedom and collegiality in some respects when compared with other democratic countries in the same respects. The problem is mostly in the Western media coverage of Russia, which plays this "authoritarian" card over and over again ignoring the standing facts and obvious changes made since Soviet era. Notably, western scholars and serious experts typically express much more balanced and accurate views on Putin and Russian politics. ] ] 06:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:Returning to the question in the beginning of the section, the answer is that ''there are criticisms in this article''. But per the supremacy of facts over opinions and per ] the criticisms should not take more place and prominence than they deserve. Consider that this is an overview article about Putin's biography, policies and personality, and that it should present a wide, globalized, accurate and balanced coverage, and that by virtually all factual indicators in such areas as economy, ecology, technology, infrastructure development, military, social sphere, Putin has been an extremely active and successful manager so far, while the main point of politics (sphere where he was mostly criticized) is to manage and improve life of the citizens, economy and other named spheres. Most certainly it is not Western media which report on Russia very selectively, and of course not radical opposition groups in Russia (such as Navalnyites) that should serve to us as examples of decent coverage of the subject. Misplaced Pages is not news or journalism or political arena. I suspect that when we write about Putin's life story, economic and domestic policies, the best examples would be scholarly biographies and books about Putin by such acclaimed authors as ] and ]. ] ] 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood is obviously a Putin supporter, his views on this subject are not neutral, therefore he can't oppose the creation of criticisms section, this article already has it's share of how good Mr. Putin is. Russian electoral system is not the same as French. The only proper comparison would be electoral system of Belarus'. Russian Central Election Commission does not register any real opposition parties or candidates for presidency. Zyuganov, Mironov and Zhirinovsky are rigged opposition, not real. They are there to provide a legitimacy to Putin's regime. Real opposition are Navalny, Udaltsov, Yashin, Gudkovs, Ponomarev, some other Just Russia members, Nemcov, Kasparov, Rijkov, Limonov and others. Putin would not allow them to elect. Basically Putin chooses his own opponents at elections and is planning to rule forever.
Navalny is notable because he is extremely popular, banned from Russian TV and very successful at giving the people real view of Kremlin's corruption. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I totally agree with that. Grayhood is not a netural person on this topic. I persanally think that he even may be working with "ministry of Putin's propaganda" which is trying to maintain the good look of minister Putin on the net. I can't think anything beside that when i hear words like "extremely active and successful manager so far" from anyone.
:But ok, i'll leave the Grayhood alone and return to the discussion about Putin.
:Everyone in russia knows that television is under control of Putin's clan. TV most likely will not show you anything that can leave bad impression of Putin, Medvedev or their party "United Russia". Most magazines or newspapers are also under the strict censorship. That's why Navalny was banned from russian TV, he has proof of many corruption affairs which leads to Putin's party, and Navalny was trying to sue them for stealing billions of dollars, but court refuses to see evidence, and the Police didn't take any actions to investigate any of that cases. The TV in Russia now is main tool for manipulating public opinion, the internet is widely used only in big cities, it's audience is mostly young people and you need search for the information yourself, so it cannot compete with TV. But Putin's associates tried to take control of the internet as well. Several months ago Anonymous group steal correspondence of the leaders of the "Kremlin's youth movements" which showed that millions of dollars was spent on bribes for russian top bloggers, for creationg their own top political blogs, for paying hundreds comentators which must attack opposition blogs and derail unwanted political topics and discussions, for DDoS attacks and many many more things. And don't listen if anyone starts yelling that's not about Putin, it's his regime doing this.
:Now, the laws and police. You know that in russia you can go to jail for the ten words you post in your blog or social network? It's real. For example one of the russian Natsionalist movement Leaders is now being sued for the words "It's time to end with this strange economic policy", i'm not joking! Another blogger was sentenced to a 180 hours of social work for a picture of a nazi leaders with comment "russian police", the blogger didn't even made it, he just found it on the net and posted in his facebook page. That's what police in russia do! But ok, i'll tell you more! In Cazan four policemen RAPED with a bottle of champagne a man while making him confess a small theft he even didn't do! The man after rape DIED! The case caused a mass of social commotion. And only after that four policemen was just fired and sentenced to a two months of house imprisonment, BRAVO!! It's not just a single case, belive me.
:The police and the peaceful demonstration. My favorite topic. You know, that in russia we have a contitution, right? Ok! the is a 31th article of the constitution, which states that the people of russia can gather peacfully without weapons, anytime anywhere in public places, because the people of russia is the root of the democracy. If you want to demonstrate you need just to go to a city hall and notify the mayor that you want, for exampe, to gather 5000 people on red square on sunday. They can't refuse you, its your right, they must assist you, and guard you from anything. But they don't. They never give you the place you want, they think of 100 reasons to send you and you demonstration away from the center of the city, the main squares on the day of your demonstrarions will be repaired, used by other parties or just in cleaning. If you dare come to that square with your comrades you see nothing of that, no repairs, no cleaning, no demontstations, only hundreds of policemen who waining for you. They'll shout about 15 mins that your demonstration is unauthorized and you should go home immidietly, that you're breaking the law. Trying to talk to them and explain that they're wrong is useless. The have the order, and they don't care. After 15 mins they usually starts to arrest(sometimes brutally using force and batons) those who is trying to convince them, after that- leaders of the demonstration and the most active people, after that everyone who is cathes their eye, even people who is just passing by. In the police station they write in reports whatever whey want, because they can't charge you with anything. Usually they use the article 1.9.3 "didn't obey the legitimate demand of the police", the court either doesn't listen anything, you can't win even with video which shows that you obey and didn't do anything wrong, if admit your guilt you'll get money penalty if you'll insist that you're innocent whey can even sent you to jail for 15 days or less.
:Any leader who oppose Putin's course is constantly being held under a heavy pressure. "Center E" the brach of police department responsible for combating extremism is monitoring every their move, interrogate their relatives, coworkers, friends, trying to sue them for every possible or impossible reason. They taping the phone conversations, monitoring bank accounts, chasing after their movements trying to get any compromising data they can get. Television spreads lies about them. There are always numerous provocations from the "Kremlin's youth movements", some of the leaders was even assaulted by them, but police didn't arrest anyone.
:And that's not all. There are "fair" elections and laughable trials about the falsifications, there are dead industry, crippling army, numerous social problems and disasterous corruprion. Because of the growing oil prices russia have money, but because of Putin that money is not working for the sake of russia, they're workong for Putin and his clan only. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I, too, am an IP, and I disagree. Putin makes life better for the majority of Russians. Yes, corruption is bad, but like ] said, Russians like being corrupt. Also, no one is going to read your walls of text. You don't like clericalisation? Tuff. Putin is saving you from godless communism. ] (]) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Well it's just your opinion. Want to share it with someone? Go to the "united russia" homepage they'll be very happy that you join them! This topic about CRITISISMS of Vladimir Putin which should be in this article. Also, about "better life". Of course it's getting better, the oil prices in the early 00s were 15 bucks per barrel and now 110 bucks, 65% of russia's budget is consists of trading our gas and oil, like in Nigeria or other african counties, Every economist in russia says that russia economy just falls apart if oil prices go below 60$ per barrel! We don't produce anything, even the factory which produced AK-74 go bankrupt, russian spacecrafts crashes every year, satellites doesn't work because they were delivered to the wrong orbits, the salary of the young space engineer IS LOWER THAN A SALARY OF A WORKER IN McDONALDS!! Godless Communism you say? Putin's rule is worse case of the communism political system! It's the same ruling party which controlls everything, you want to go to the top? You need to be friends with it. But when russia have communism we were strong nation who was proud of itself, and used it's resources to improve, we had strong army, thousands factories, great scientists, good medicine and nice free education. And now it's all gone, and all russian internet uses term "RUSHKA" and often adding "going to a pile of sh*t" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Hi, the more you write, folks, the less we actually take in. Try to be succinct (short). As for Greyhood, ] would suggest we '''should''' add some section on criticism: his rokirovka (swapping with Medvedev without the public having any say), authoritarianism, bullying of surrounding countries, probable backing of assassinations, sexist remarks, etc, etc. Many above seemed to agree on a section, and you're the only one against it seems.] (]) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Re: "swapping with Medvedev without the public having any say" - lol, you missed the presidential elections - public voted there ;)
:::::Re: "authoritarianism". Addressed above in detail. ] ] 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Re: "probable backing of assassinations". Yeah, "probable". Currently, the murderers of Politkovskaya point out to Berezovsky and Zakayev as possible clients, and Litvinenko's father denies the British-media-pushed version of his son's murder and claims that Alexander Goldfarb (an author of the theory of Putin's involvement) is something like a CIA agent. Part of these things are already in the article. ] ] 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Re: "sexist". Dunno what part of Putin's sayings you consider "sexist", but 1) sexism is widespread in Russia (which is a relatively conservative country) 2) under Putin, the number of women in Russia who made top level political careers probably set a historical record. ] has achieved a highest political position for a woman in Russia since ], plus there is a number of very prominent Ministress. ] ] 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As a member of Ministry of Putin's propaganda I <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Picture POV problem ==

The number of pictures used in this article has created a neutrality issue. There is some amount of "glorification" taking place which has created a POV issue that needs to be remedied. ] (]) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:I noticed that on the article on ] the size of the pictures of him were set to "thumb" such that user's preferences controlled the size. Please can we have this feature on the article on Putin too. It seems a good feature.--] (]) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
*Agree, it's almost like a cult page.] (]) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:You are absolutely right. it is shocking. The article on two-term president, and one term prime minister Putin has 32 photos showing him, whereas the article on two-term president of the USA ] has only 29. Those extra three photos are completely unacceptable! And poor ], who also served two terms as US president only has 23 photos showing him - clear evidence of a pro-Republican bias on Misplaced Pages! This is shocking!--] (]) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

:SDS and Malick: Could you provide some specific examples and explanations? ~~ ] (]) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

::It's the style of them and their fawning undercurrent: do we need a shitty painting of his? Him in an F1 car? Why is there no picture of him exclaiming "Treasure!" with the fake amphorae? That is more instructive than the F1 one. I presume it's not here because it would be ''negative''. And we can't have that. Do we need two photos of him as a child? Probably not. And why one of him in a fighter plane? It's repeating the F1 one surely? Showing him as a 'daredevil'. Oh, and it's even repeating a later photo of him in the cockpit of a Tupolev. And then there is a photo of him doing martial arts, skiing, on a motorbike. These are repeating the same theme. Meanwhile, the better Bush article has photos of him at important moments - signing things, etc. Our photos of Putin and Medvedev, for example, are at less significant times (one doesn't even mention the occasion). Oh, and then we have Putin in a yellow car promoting a Russian brand... but '''we can't even see it's Putin'''! He's too small!
::Basically: too many show Putin being a hard man. It's his image, true, but can't we show more substance? And less insignificant stuff? Really, a junk Confucius Peace Prize? It's a joke award from a totalitarian state. Yet we dutifully include it as if it were something big... ] (]) 19:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Malick, I removed one of the pics from "Early life and education". I also removed other pics and did some downsizing. It's looking better. ] (]) 12:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:Firstly, the images in this article illustrate the text. As such, pictures ''per se'' can't be a POV issue. The images illustrate Putin, and Putin is exactly a person as illustrated, as shown by the text. Call it "strong man" or "PR loving politician" - doesn't matter, and both points of view are reflected in the text. Therefore, removing images just on this basis has no point and reduces the encyclopedic quality of the article, which should illustrate the subject and show how it is different from other similar subjects. We have already removed a number of images, and the sections in the article should be illustrated. That's why I restore some of the deleted images. Specifically, I can't see how could there be a "POV problem" with a teenage image of Putin, and why we should leave the 1st Premiership section totally unillustrated, especially when his first flight on a military plane was his first and very notable and perhaps the most memorable "strong man" action.
:Secondly, per ] we should make as much images as possible without pre-determined image size. I agree, though, that some excessively large images would benifit from lower and fixed size. I de-fix size where it looks OK. ] ] 04:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::This whole back-and-forth mutual stonewalling is really getting tedious now. I think we need to find a third party to mediate here; these disputes never go anywhere. ~~ ] (]) 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Mediating in such technical issues as pictures and their size and numbers would be a joke (also, just remember what happened with the Holodomor mediation and discussing one single picture, which was eventually deleted simply because of no convincing sourcing - hopefully, we have no such ''historical relevance'' and ''copyright'' issues with the pictures here). We may start discussing text backing up the pictures, but I hope that as a reasonable person with a reasonable approach to the lead image here, you agree that the subject should be illustrated showing the most peculiar and characteristic traits, as well as the most important moments in the life and activity of the subject. ] ] 05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you are quite far from the truth. The way pictures are used (the amount, the ones chosen, and their size) can absolutely cause a POV issue. Also, see Malick's comment above. Let's start with the "Early life and education" section. There is some amount of glorification taking place which I fixed and Greyhood reverted. He also re-added the unduly large bottle of vodka, which I had downsized, even though the "Brands" section only has 2 sentences?? He also re-added the motorbike picture, the comic book picture, and increased the size of the picture of Putin fishing with his shirt off, as well as re-added the picture of Putin on a ship in the Arctic policy section, a photo that isn't necessary and cheapens the article by glorifying Putin. The way to move forward is through consensus. Regarding the early life section, the norm on Misplaced Pages is to have one or less pictures. See ], ], and ]. What Greyhood is attempting to do goes against this norm. Let's see what the consensus here is. My view is to only have the photo with his mom. Greyhood thinks both photos should be included. Let's wait to hear from some other editors and then we can move on to other photos. ] (]) 10:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC) -- See: ]
:The amount of pictures and their size are purely technical issues. The choice of pictures is connected to the text, so we return to the same point. The ] is very important and there is no reason why it shouldn't be illustrated. The same goes for popular culture, of which the "glorification" is a part of. For the rest, see below and see ]. I see your point, though, and I'll try to procure some images "mocking" Putin, not only "glorifying" him ;) as it seems that some editors here are unhappy primarily about not enough negative POV in the illustrations. ] ] 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:Re: "unduly large bottle of vodka". LOL. {{=)}} I thought that in the article about the top politician in ''Russia'' you would expect too see ''vodka'', especially given the fact that according to a tradition only the most famous Russian politicians have vodkas named after them (Putin, Medvedev, Zhirinovsky) ;). ] ] 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, obviously the use of pictures can be POV: to claim otherwise is absurd. The vodka isn't necessary, let's cut it. His craply daubed painting - let's cut it. A barely visible Putin on a bike - does little. Putin's silhouette at sunset - rubbish. Needs cutting. Oh, and let's have the fake amphorae discovery! And a pic of the crowds protesting against him! That ''would be balance''. ] (]) 20:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:For balance we also would have to insert a pic of much larger crowds supporting Putin ;) I'd suggest to avoid that crowd measuring in this article, we've had enough of it in more specific articles ;). ] ] 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Would give some balance - showing one of his less reputable photo ops.] (]) 21:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:There are many good photos and videos which could be used to illustrate the adventures section - I would like to add more of them, but we are limited in space. Currently, the Formula 1 picture combines a photo and a link to the relevant video. There is also the amphorae video, but it is much less interesting - just an interview (in Russian) on the seashore, not the best kind of stuff for en wiki. ] ] 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


*Both Malick and myself agree that how pictures are used can cause a POV issue. Greyhood's disagreement is noted. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

{{-}}
==="Early life and education" section===
Malick, will you give your thoughts on the "Early life and education" section. I'm trying to see what the consensus is and then plan to move on to other photos. ] (]) 08:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:I think the pic of him as a teenager adds nothing (and seeing him go through puberty ain't pretty (that's a joke Greyhood)). The one of him with his mum is great and enough. ] (]) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::Don't get the joke - the humor is less clear than vodka ;). On the photo with his mum Putin is barely visible, and teenage photo nicely shows him growing up (he looks very young but still recognizable). ] ] 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Right now the direction of consensus (see my comment in the section above) is in removing the teenage photo and just keeping the one with him Mom (which can be enlarged by selecting it). I will remove it now. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

We can do without the numbering, until the Russians decide if Putin's returning as the 2nd Prez or is becomeing the 4th Prez. More importantly, if we're gonna keep his 2 tenures under ''President of Russia'' (between election & inauguration), then leave out the ''"Elect"'' part. Putin wasn't ''President Elect'' from 2000 to 2008. ] (]) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

== Litvinenko Death ==

The article says that "no official certification had been issued as to the cause or manner of death". This is stretching the truth a little. The death certificate is classified in the UK so it hasn't been released, a death certificate was almost certainly issued. They found polonium in his body, his hair fell out and had all the signs of radiation poisoning. As people are saying above, the facts are there, it's just that they are spun beyond belief in some cases. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The source says: "Dunkerley, however, contacted the coroner's office seeking clarification, and learned that in fact no certification had been issued as to the cause or manner of death. Officially, it has not been settled that Litvinenko's death was a homicide, or that he died from Polonium poisoning." ] ] 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion is that he was murdered. WP can take that into account. ] (]) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::With recent revelations the Goldfarb's and British media version obviously became rather uncertain. And are there any ''scholarly'' sources? I see only media sources so far. I doubt there could be any scholarly consensus on the issue, and Russian media and apparently some British guys widely questioned the polonium version. ] ] 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Information needs to be cited on this, and needs to conform to what the sources say; (not what editors think they ought to have said. If you do not like it that the BBC used the word "traitor" to describe the man, take it up with the BBC). Sources that give minority opinions (such as claiming it was not polonium) should not be given undue weight.--] (]) 07:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== Approval ratings graph ==

I had to reinsert the ratings graph one more time . The web archive of the source has been added to support the data. Even without the archive, deletion solely on the basis of ] is not correct (as for the fact that it shows only the presidency period, that's a reason to update and extend the graph or better to create a separate one for the premiership, but not to remove valid data - being not full does not make it outdated). ]: ''"Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."'' ] ] 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you. This needed re-adding.--] (]) 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

==Relationship with Medvedev==
Shouldn't there be a dedicated section on their tandem? It's dominated the last 4 years and was more than a little unusual in world politics... and there should also be something on how the rokirovka (job swap) took place (maybe even it's own article?). And now, there's the term to express how Russians now feel about the tandem. ] (]) 18:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
:The "term" seems to be some obscure personal or journalist opinion. No established widely known equivalent in Russian. More on relationships of Putin with Medvedev - well, perhaps, though few key facts seem to be already in the article. ] ] 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

==Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown==
Instead of edit warring on this, , , , please could we discuss it?

*Greyhood - please provide information with citations here for your assertions that: "Putin already has some official residences for personal use -why not write about them? "alleged" connection, denied by new owner and officials"

*Malick78 - please provide some citations to back up your claim that it is "widely reported by multiple RS".

Having read a few of the articles cited on the topic, it all seems a lot of nonsense to me. Nobody (except those on the inside) knows the future function of the building.--] (]) 23:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
* (in a liberal newspaper) provides a list of Putin's and Medvedev's residences, and mentions some new residences under construction. It says that the secrecy about these residences stimulates rumours, and that some builders of rich houses in Russia are happy to pretend that their buildings are intended for the use of top politicians. It also says that Putin's press secretary denies any connection of Putin to the story. says the building in question was sold for 350 million, which immediately renders the 1 billion nothing but a roundish sensationalistic figure. The fact that it ''was'', was ''allegedly'', and ''was would-be residence'' for Putin isn't properly described in the current version and only highlights the dubious nature of the claim. The same source says "allegedly" and says that the new owner "dismissed links to Mr Putin as "rumours and journalists' fantasies". The whole story was started by another businessman who fled from Russia fearing of getting arrested and then turned into opposition to Putin - a very common story among Russian businessmen (who are often just economic criminals in fact). The first source says that the story was mostly ignored by Russian media, and while at the point of publication Kommersant suggested there still could be some serious consequences out of the story, by now it is clear that there are no such consequences. ] ] 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
**To clarify my position, it can be OK if "Putin's palace" is mentioned in the article in a short, factually correct, non-sensationalistic and non-contradictory way, and among other residences, not like it is done now. However can't figure how to tell this complex story short so far - yet it is certainly not notable enough to take many space. But perhaps I'll try. As for the picture, Putin's known belongings should obviously be preferred over some alleged past would-be residence. Misplaced Pages is not about rumours and dubious claims. ] ] 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

, . This edit doesn't contain sensationalism, Im not sure if NPOV even applies here, because there was a primary source reporting these things. The reliability of the source might be worth mentioning to provide context- but I dont see how we can logically omit many of these related sourced statements and maintain a good article on Vladmir Putin. Im not sure if these recent edits are constructive.] (]) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:I think that when first they claim the mansion cost is a round figure of $1 billion but then becomes known it is sold for more reasonable $350 mln, the initial claim is sensationalism. And when we have one source and $1 billion figure in the article and then another source with $350 mln, it is a bit of contradiction. And I do not think that a good article on Vladmir Putin should contain detailed descriptions of dubious claims. A brief mention is enough. The rest may be read at the linked article. ] ] 18:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::Since when do things in Russia sell for their real value? (Did I really need to point that out???? :-o ) State assets are frequently sold at knock-down prices. The fact that the place was sold between (presumably friends) for a third of it's real price is nothing unusual in Russia. There is no "contradiction" at all. The price, furthermore, didn't include the building of the infrastructure around it. Either way, '''I think this deserves more space, Greyhood, than his rubbish painting that you're so attached to'''. Isn't that a reasonable wish? ] (]) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::The underlying problem is that there are just rumours and dubious claims by dubious people, which do not provide a clear connection to Putin (unlike the painting which is surely Putin's). This all is as good as the rumours of his affair with Kabaeva. I hope your intention is not about spreading yellow press style stories here while removing things which you personally don't like ("rubbish painting"). State assets were sold at knock-down prices in 1990s, in 2000s the practice has gone down, I hope you would know that. And it is not clear why a sale of house between too businessmen should be mentioned in Putin's article. Putin is a friend of dozens, perhaps hundreds of businessmen in Russia, and not only. Also, the involvement of the participants of this sale means that mentioning them and the "palace" in such a context might be smearing those businessmen and a violation of BLP. ] ] 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::NO BLP problems - stop fishing. It's been reported in multiple RS:
::::#
::::#
::::#
::::#
::::It's clearly been well covered. BLP says rumours regarding well-known people are fair game if notable. The painting, is, was and never will be, notable.] (]) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Reported by multiple sources doesn't stop it being "alleged". There is absolutely no reason why we should devote so much space for a dubious story. We may discuss how much (or how little space) to devote to it. But replacing the image of Putin's known belongings with an image of ''alleged'', never proved, promoted by dubious political opponents ''would-be'' belongings, now sold to different owner denying connection, is absolutely inappropriate. ] ] 14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::As usual, you're going with what you like and don't like. Allegations can be notable. says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This applies both to the marriage (below), and ]: both are alleged, sure, based on rumour, perhaps, but they are '''notable, relevant, and well-documented'''. None of your objections applies Greyhood. Please refer to WP policy, not your imagined version of it. ] (]) 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I agree to the brief mention of the allegation. I could not agree to devoting much place to dubious stuff, and I absolutely can't agree with preferring allegations over hard facts, like you do with the image. Please stop it. This is beyond logic and beyond being encyclopedic. ] ] 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Wrong, encyclopaedic means covering all notable info. BLP is quite clear that allegations can be covered. Potentially syphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars for his own private purposes deserves mentioning. Please refer to policy rather than just whinging that you dislike it. Thx ] (]) 21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You know, that per ] allegations deserve mentioning in the general article on the subject only inasmuch as these allegations are sound and important, and by logic they should necessarily be mentioned only in case they altered the fate of the subject (like was with Strauss-Kahn, for example). With Putin, this is not the case. No kind of criminal persecution, no focus on the topic even among the protesters, not even discussed with Putin himself, unlike some other allegations. The allegations are highly dubious and unsound, and have had absolutely no political or personal effect on Putin. So please stop POV-pushing and overwheighting of dubious info. We retain a link to the "palace" article, the readers could go there and read everything in due detail - anyway we have not enough place in the general overview article for the appropriate explanation of the story. ] ] 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry, where is the policy on "only in case they altered the fate of the subject"? I don't think it exists. As it is, this is an internationally reported issue. It's notable. Stop deleting it just cos you don't like it.] (]) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::By your logic, any allegations against someone who controls the legal system (Putin - check!) will never be mentioned because the person will never allow themselves to be prosecuted! An absolutely idiotic point to make. ] (]) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Per logic those allegations are unimportant since no effect. Per policy, unimportant things should have little weight. And judiciary in Russia is independent. And anyway, suppose Putin controls judiciary, but why there are no attempts to start criminal cases? Why nobody tries to go in court and accuse Putin over the issue? There are people in Russia who try to sue Gorbachev over the alleged state treason which had resulted in the USSR collapse - these attempts are declined by courts - why no similar things about Putin? ] ] 21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Now your arguing is absurd. "allegations are unimportant since no effect" - no, worldwide press coverage = notable. End of. "judiciary in Russia is independent" - no, you're just being a nashi propagandist now. It's not even close to being independent. That's why Russians sue each other in London. Btw, Gorbachev isn't in power - hence he can be sued. Putin is untouchable. We all know that. ] (]) 18:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

== Inauguration ==

Putin's 2012 inauguration happened midst massive protests, riots, fighting with police. The whole Moscow historical center has been wiped out of any automobiles and people by SWAT and police. Police attacks unarmed people who wear white lines (symbol of protest).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxTBF57cYw4
http://drugoi.livejournal.com/3726914.html#cutid1

At this time people are still getting hurt, all TV stations are ordered not to show anything. And.. wikipedia keeps cleaning Putin's article of any dirt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You mean the so called "March of Millions" to which an estimated 8,000 people came in Moscow according to the police (more according to the organizers, but still at least 20 times less than a million)? While there was a large pro-Putin demonstration at the same time? ] ] 11:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
There was around 30000-50000 people there. Can you see them on those photos? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As I write, anyways it is 20 times less than a million which they hoped for when planning those protests. While many millions supported Putin on the elections. ] ] 12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Your English suddenly turned to worse. I wonder how many people write under your name. You nashist scum. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:]. And no, I have no any relation to ] and I am very skeptical about that movement to say the least. Your comment is very illustrative and vindicates your position. We do not need political activism and radicalism here. It is encyclopedia, not a blog or political forum. ] ] 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::Don't feed the trolls. And don't waste our space, both of you.] (]) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you guys prevent Greyhood from deleting "neutrality disputed" sign? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I'd love to... would help if other editors backed me up, since there's clearly support for such a tag.] (]) 21:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::There is? Who from?--] (]) 21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

According to this there were only a few hundred demonstrators. Of course I am not sure that this newspaper is a reliable source.--] (]) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

:Few hundred detained was on May 7 at the moment of inauguration. Mass protests took place on May 6. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes, there were less arrested on May 7, but then almost the whole Moscow was closed and guarded by previously unseen masses of militia . It's also obvious that Putin will hit hard on any sign of opposition now. Just wearing a white ribbon was enough to be arrested and beaten . ] (]) 10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:There are multiple videos showing clear provocations and starting of violence from the opposition. They managed to avoid it for most of the last few months, but the nature of their recent actions is too obvious. ] ] 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, we all know that wearing a white ribbon is a provocation and is enough to be arrested, but wearing a kalashnikov is of course ok . ] (]) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::A clear example of a provocation. As for the ribbons, why at all they allowed those multiple white ribbon filled protests then? ] ] 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

== Marriage ==

How come we've so little on their separation? ] (]) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:Putin is not as obvious as his colleague Lukashenka who always travels with his illegitimate son. In Putin's case it's more hidden, although it's a known fact among people within the administration . ] (]) 10:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::Guys, are you sure where are you? This is encyclopedia, not yellow press. ] ] 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I didn't know that ] was considered to be yellow press. But unfortunately there are few that dares to tell anything that could be traced back to them. Personally I have very close sources on this but it's OR, so we will have to wait for a printed source. Sooner or later it will appear. But the fact that Putin's wife has been away from the public surely has been discussed in the media. ] (]) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::His entire family is mostly off-public. As for his wife, it is quite natural that when she was not First Lady in 2008-2012, she became less prominent. For wives of Prime Ministers there is no official status or political role in Russia, while for the President's wife there are. Kind of obvious. I've seen the video of the ceremony and I don't find that Lyudmila Putina looked unusual there. At the end of the inauguration there was quite cordial gesture between Putin and his wife; she indeed looked slightly nervous (like Putin himself) and "swaying back and forth" on the church ceremony following the inauguration, but otherwise looked ok. ] ] 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::"Yellow press" is not a phrase WP policy uses, ever, as far as I know. '''does, say, however''': "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This applies both to the marriage, and ], btw: both are alleged, sure, based on rumour, perhaps, but they are '''notable, relevant, and well-documented'''. None of your objections applies Greyhood.] (]) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::BTW:
:::::#
:::::#
:::::#
:::::#
:::::#

:::::Whether these are true or not (WP isn't "truth", btw), is neither here nor there. It's mentioned in reliable, multiple sources. Hence, should be included.] (]) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::Comrade Malick, actually ] is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more. ] says that "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."


== Lede image ==
::::::So if something can legitimately be described as "Yellow Press", it is not a very reliable source. It is nearly as bad as a think piece.--] (]) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You seem to have misunderstood something quite fundamental: there are facts regarding events, and claims that rumours exist. The sources aren't saying that Putin actually had affairs/his marriage is on the rocks. They are mainly saying that these things have been reported widely. Which is true. The are reporting ''the fact that there are rumours''. Whether the rumours are true is not the issue. The existence of the rumours is the issue. Are they RS for ''the existence of rumours''? I think '''yes'''.
::::::::That said, there are ''some "facts" regarding events'', i.e. that the couple are rarely seen together, and that Putina didn't wear her ring for the TV interview. These do need RS. Again, I think we can trust these sources for those real "facts". Do you disagree? ] (]) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If Putin were president of England, it would be notable that English newspapers published such stupid rumours. But he is president of Russia, so it is not notable.--] (]) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Again, I presume you mean Britain (please learn some geography): that's a fatuous comment. The sites above are mentioning gossip/rumours/facts covered originally in the Russian media. It's notable. Feel free to ask for comment from the RS notice board. They disagreed with you last time. Wonder why? ] (]) 20:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I think the Putin's are sufficiently well off to have more than one home. Considering their background, it would be a bit surprising if Mrs Putin did not live in St P some of the time. She does have a life of her own (as incidentally do a lot of European middle-aged women). As for not wearing a wedding ring 24 hours a day - this is common too - especially in your own home. The Putin's are also quite powerful so an annoying newspaper that prints rubbish might just happen to close down - in England a newspaper called ] closed down too I hear - was this also evidence of the Putins splitting up?--] (]) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Erm, the source says she is said to live in St P most of the time, not some of the time. We go with the source, not your spin of it. As for the wedding ring - that she doesn't wear it in her most significant TV appearance for years with her husband (they were interviewed about the census) - is highly telling. Again, the sources say it's significant and we go with that not your opinion. The NOTW and British (not English) media is in no way comparable to Russia's abominable press situation. You know that.] (]) 20:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Putin's daughters were studying in SPb Uni, which they entered about 5-6 years ago as far as I know. I suppose a mother would like to live close to her children. A ring is a very minor detail. Sorry, but all this is a typical ] kind of stories - take a small detail or rumor about a VIP person, blow it out of proportion and print with a sensationalized headline, that's how it is made. ] ] 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Btw., point 5 of the ] definition: ''dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system''. Pretty funny, because this is how the British media report on Russian non-systemic opposition figures. ] ] 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your personal knowledge about their kids and Putina's reasons for moving are worth nothing. Many parents live in separate cities from the university-age children. The sources say her living arrangements are notable - hence they are notable. Flinging the phrase "yellow press" around doesn't stop it from being notable and widely reported by multiple sources - as WP requires. I'm getting bored of repeating this... ] (]) 21:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm getting bored to remind that the encyclopedia should be primarily about hard facts. Not about allegations or rumours which are in abundance about any famous person - sadly, even in the so called "reliable sources". Unless these allegations are proved or at least have some hard-factual and obvious effect on the life of the subject (who is living person by the way), per ] they have little to zero importance. We could tolerate them in specific articles or subarticles, but not in a general overview article where we have many more important and more certain things to tell. Also there is BLP. ] ] 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And I'm bored with your pontificating based on opinion rather than policy. '''I've shown you BLP says allegations are fine''', so don't mention it vaguely in passing without giving quotes to support your claims. Allegations regarding syphoning off millions of dollars are fair game for an encyclopaedia. Your comment - "primarily about hard facts" - leaves open the possibility of devoting ''a few bytes (of this huge article!) to allegations''. That's called NPOV. As usual, you have no interest in being neutral as many commenters have said on this page. ] (]) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Unlike you, I've never stated my personal estimate of the subject openly. I have no interest in being non-neutral. And your personal estimate is far from being neutral. If you hate the subject, better leave editing this article to people with more neutral attitudes. The information which you add is allegations, undue weight, sometimes factually incorrect, weasel-worded, with no any known effect on the subject's life, but potentially harmful to other people, such as his daughters, buyer of the residence etc. ] ] 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


@] -- thoughts on what the portrait of him should be? I feel the version you reverted to has slightly unnatural coloration. Cheers! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:As for the photos of daughters and family portraits - there are plenty of those, though in a young age of daughters or without faces shown. , , Do not add incorrect and ill-worded information, Malick, like you did here ''She is rarely seen with Putin'' - how rare? at what period? why at all they should be seen together if it is well-known that Putin works a lot and is very secretive about his family, and they have less official occassions to be seen together while Putin was PM? ''Putin has been linked with other women'' - what does it mean? Do you realise that this is an obvious candidate of BLP violation with several living persons involved? ''Their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued.'' Incorrect, at best requires extensive specification. ] ] 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:{{replyto|JayCubby}} Hi! IMHO the other version was not centered. In my view we could crop "your" version and use that, if it's true that it has a higher resolution. -- ] (]) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Try reading the sources and the text in the WP article. I said the "Russian media" doesn't publish their photos - you linked to a foreign webpage, and Russian blogs. That's hardly mainstream Russian media, is it? : "Дочери Путина. Почему их не показывают?" - "Daughters of Putin. Why aren't they shown?" Doh! It supports my edit which you're complaining about!
::Alright, I'll upload a recropped version in a few. Cheers! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span><span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Your other complaints about the vague wording - suggest you want me to be more detailed. But you say we shouldn't give too much info on this! Which is it? As usual... vague complaints not backed up by anything substantial. ] (]) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Putin's daughters could be seen on his official election sight. And there are or were more of his family photos on official or semi-official sites and in the Russian media - that's where bloggers take it from. Why the daughters are not shown is very well known - Putin keeps them in secret since he became President, and that started long before any conspiracy theories about relationships with his wife.
:::You should understand what I mean pretty well - better not have any info, than have incorrect, unclear worded, dubious info placed in support of unsound allegations and conspiracy theories. ] ] 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::A) one photo of his 25/26 year old daughters taken 20 years ago shows that photos of them aren't welcome in the media. Hence, you've again proven my point. B) There is no official family picture of them. Again proving my point.
::::C) I don't know if you mean well, and don't care: all I see is you deleting negative info about Putin. That's against WP's spirit and I dislike it.] (]) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::There are more photos than one and there seem to be newer photos too, though without faces shown. The old family photos are well available in books and on the web. The reason why the photos are not seen in the media is obvious and explained many times. There is no official portrait of his wife as far as i know - there is simply no such tradition in Russia, and the daughters are purposefully concealed - that's why there could be no official family portrait. ] ] 22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not against addition of factual hard fact criticism. I'm against addition of rumors and unsound allegations, and I'm most certainly against giving them too much space if they are added, and I'm absolutely against replacing hard facts with allegations. ] ] 22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Please, let's not insert ] rumours into this article. The official residences are notable, and should be covered. Unproven rumours about another residence should not. About family pictures: it's simply not true that there a no images of his daughters. For example, there's a family portrait in the book "First Person". ] (]) 22:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


== Infobox image == == "Dictator" ==


Not neutral, doesn't follow manual of style.
Here is the new official portrait. ] (]) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
]


He looks a bit dickish, but seems perfect :) ] (]) 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Also, associated account is likely a troll account, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:GreatLeader1945/ ] (]) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Perhaps you would like it even more if we used a different photo from the same set ;) ] ] 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::Is there one where he's trying out a smaller ]? If there is, I'd go with it.] (]) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::On one hand you propose this, showing your assessment of the subject so nicely, on the other hand you support the addition of yellow press style stories to the article, and even prefer them over hard facts. Hmm. I have to remind you that this is encyclopedia. ] ] 20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


:Taken care of. ] (]) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
== Not a forum ==


== Is he a dictator or isn't he? ==
Misplaced Pages claims that talk pages are not a forum to discuss the subject of the article but a page to discuss the article itself.


First line of Bashar Al Assad's article: "Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) is a Syrian politician and dictator who has been the 19th and current president of Syria since 2000."
How this talk page is full of anti-Putin shit.


First line of Putin's article: "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who has served as President of Russia since 2012, having previously served from 2000 to 2008."
I wonder why?


Later on: "Under Putin's rule, the Russian political system has been transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship with a personality cult."


How can one rule a dictatorship without being a dictator? And if he is one, then why is it acceptable to list that in Assad's article but not here, or vice versa? Which is correct? ] (]) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


:To name Putin as a dictator you would need to show that the preponderance of independent ] refer to him as a dictator. I believe that is the case with Assad. ] (]) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages = The voice of the crazy USA
:I'm not sure that most sources call him that, because.....reasons. Probably because Russia is a world power and Syria is not. Trump's opponents say he will be a dictator but we don't name him one because most sources don't. ] (]) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::How many exactly do we need for it to be considered a "preponderance"? Is there an exact number? How many reliable sources which do versus reliable sources that don't are required, or what is the ratio? ] (]) 12:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't give you a specific number. Obviously you can't survey every possible source on this planet, but you should at least be able to show that a wide variety of news outlets and perhaps scholarly sources like academic journals refer to Putin as a "dictator". I think most sources refer to him as "President" because he is "elected"(yes, in rigged elections with token and approved opposition). Most dictators, if they have elections at all, do it as a yes/no question with supervision of the voters(i.e. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam). ] (]) 12:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@] you are advised not to add anything controversial in the article. You have been reverted more than once. Please discuss, cite reliable sources and gain consensus before adding anything. Thank you. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:Easily sourced......and is so on every related pages that have gone through many talks. If editors are not familiar with the topic they should at least do some minimal research before posting.
: ~~ ] (]) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
:*{{findsource|Vladimir Putin dictator}}
:Should add to the body {{quotation |Under the ], Russia has experienced ],<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UhwiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48 |title=Russia and Europe: Building Bridges, Digging Trenches |year=2014 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-99200-1 |editor1=Kjell Engelbrekt |pages= |editor2=Bertil Nygren |access-date=24 July 2023 |archive-date=13 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813133217/https://books.google.com/books?id=UhwiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kiyan|first=Olga|title=Russia & Democratic Backsliding: The Future of Putinism|date=9 April 2020|journal=]|publisher=]|url=https://hir.harvard.edu/russia-democratic-backsliding-the-future-of-putinism/|access-date=8 July 2022|archive-date=24 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224213448/https://hir.harvard.edu/russia-democratic-backsliding-the-future-of-putinism/|url-status=live}}</ref> and has been described as an ].<ref name="Kuzio-2016">{{cite journal|last=Kuzio|first=Taras|title=Nationalism and authoritarianism in Russia|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|year=2016|volume=49|number=1|pages=1–11|publisher=]|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.002|jstor=48610429}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |last=Fischer |first=Sabine |date=2022 |title=Russia on the road to dictatorship: Internal political repercussions of the attack on Ukraine |journal=SWP Comment |doi=10.18449/2022C30 |url=https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256753 |hdl=10419/256753 |access-date=11 September 2022 |archive-date=11 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220911191555/https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256753 |url-status=live }}</ref> Putin's policies are generally referred to as ].<ref>{{cite book | author = Brian D. Taylor | date = 2018 | title = The Code of Putinism | publisher = Oxford University Press | pages = 2–7 | isbn = 978-0-19-086731-7 | oclc = 1022076734}}</ref>}}
: what is being talked about in this case - is has Russia, that has a "dictator" moved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism?<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/04/19/putin-s-war-has-moved-russia-from-authoritarianism-to-hybrid-totalitarianism-pub-86921|title=Putin’s War Has Moved Russia From Authoritarianism to Hybrid Totalitarianism|first1=Andrei|last1=Kolesnikov|first2=Andrei|last2=Kolesnikov|website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/11/02/masha-gessen-is-wrong-to-call-russia-a-totalitarian-state|title=Masha Gessen is wrong to call Russia a totalitarian state|via=The Economist}}</ref><ref name="Spanel2022">{{cite book | author = Niclas Spanel | date = 14 September 2022 | title = How authoritarian is Russia? Analysis of the form of rule from Lenin until Putin | publisher = GRIN Verlag | page =1 | isbn = 978-3-346-72357-4 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9keJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://globalvoices.org/2022/05/23/google-bucha-ways-of-protesting-the-war-in-ukraine-from-a-totalitarian-state/|title=How Russians are protesting the war in Ukraine from a totalitarian state|date=May 23, 2022}}</ref>
:*{{cite book | last=Greene | first=Samuel A. | last2=Robertson | first2=Graeme B. | title=Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2019 | isbn=978-0-300-23839-6 | jstor=j.ctvfc5417 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfc5417}}
:*{{cite book | first = Martin |last=Krzywdzinski |year= 2020 | title = Consent and Control in the Authoritarian Workplace: Russia and China Compared | publisher = ] | page = 252 | isbn = 978-0-19-252902-2 | url = {{GBurl|id=gz5MDwAAQBAJ|p=252}}|quote=''officially a democratic state with the rule of law, in practice an authoritarian dictatorship''}}
:*{{cite journal | last=Fischer | first=Sabine | title=Russia on the road to dictatorship | journal=SWP Comment | year=2022 | publisher=Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs | doi=10.18449/2022C30 | url=https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022C30/ | access-date=24 July 2024 | page=}}
:{{Reflist-talk|closed}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 16:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*Putin is undeniably a dictator, though his regime masks its authoritarian nature through the guise of democratic elections. These "choiceless elections" create a facade of choice where none truly exist. They adopt a similar approach with control of the media, threatening journalists instead of telling them what to write; and social media, throttling YouTube and Facebook instead of blocking them. This approach is more subtle than Lenin and Stalin, and allows Putin to manipulate and control the population without the overt use of force common with the more blatant dictatorships. While historians will likely label him a dictator in retrospect, most current independent media still buy into this pretense and may still refer to him by his official title as president. But he is a dictator in every sense of the word and it belongs in the lead. ] (]) 14:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:As I said above, it needs to be shown that the preponderance of English language reliable sources use the term "dictator" to refer to Putin. You seem to be admitting this isn't the case. It may be a pretense, and in casual conversation I would agree with you, but here we need sources. ] (]) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I am admitting that the news media are too careful about it. But I don't think we need a preponderance of such sources to call a spade a spade. If there is a compromise that is needed here, I can agree to put it somewhere else in the lead paragraph, couching it in some language like 'his rule has been characterised as a dictatorship". ] (]) 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Then offer sources that say that. Yes, we need sources, because that's what we do here- summarize sources. Based on your criteria, Donald Trump could be termed a "dictator" as many feel he was/will be. ] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There are lots of sources , including many in Russian also . As much as I don't like Trump, if you are going to call him or the US system as rigged as Putin's Russia, then I give up on any compromise with you. ] (]) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::It's not a comment on the system, it's simply what some out there say about him. Time will tell. ] (]) 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::It is a fallacious argument and not appropriate for this talk page. ] (]) 16:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::You're not the arbiter of what is appropriate for this page. In any event, it's not just up to me or you. Good day. ] (]) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::It is fallacious and inappropriate because literally no reliable sources call Trump a dictator. There may very well have been something fishy about the elections, and Musk's bank account, but a dictator he is not. The institutions of the US are too strong to be manipulated or coopted in the way Putin captured the state in Russia. ] (]) 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::You said "I don't think we need a preponderance of such sources to call a spade a spade". My only point was that there are people who would want us to call Trump a dictator, so yes, we do need sources. I don't agree he is one, but Google "trump dictator" and see what comes up. There are plenty of people who think he is. I'm not comparing political systems. ] (]) 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I hear you but I provided sources and I still think you was being a bit facetious in comparing Putin to Trump and pontificating about the latter's future. In my opinion, we should include dictator along with his "president" title, even if he is not referred to as that in the preponderance of everyday news sources. I'm not sure if you've been following events over the last few years, but he is literally on the level of Kim Jong Un, who we call a "dictator", even though most news sources call him "leader". ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I am afraid to add the "dictator" to the lede or infobox you would need to demonstrate that a vast majority of sources call him a dictator (rather than just a president). Tbh I do not think this is the case. ] (]) 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Many living dictators, past and present, like Assad or Kim Jong Un, often referred to as "president" or "leader" in many news sources. I don't think we need vast majority of news sources explicitly calling Putin a "dictator" in their every day reporting. I think we only need only few reliable sources relevant to the topic. ] (]) 18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Very concerned here that people are not doing basic research about the past decade or so. The fourth wave of democratization uses Russia as the main example. sourced to
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Levitsky | first=S. | last2=Way | first2=L.A. | title=Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War | publisher=Cambridge University Press | series=Problems of International Politics | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-139-49148-8 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=NZDI05p1PDgC }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite journal | last=Fish | first=M. Steven | title=What Has Russia Become? | journal=Comparative Politics | publisher=Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New York | volume=50 | issue=3 | year=2018 | issn=00104159 | jstor=26532689 | pages=327–346 | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26532689 }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Greene | first=Samuel A. | last2=Robertson | first2=Graeme B. | title=Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2019 | isbn=978-0-300-23839-6 | jstor=j.ctvfc5417 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfc5417}}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Zygar | first=M. | title=All the Kremlin's Men: Inside the Court of Vladimir Putin | publisher=PublicAffairs | year=2016 | isbn=978-1-61039-740-7 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=ETrXCwAAQBAJ }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite web | title=Validate User | website=Validate User | url=https://academic.oup.com/crawlprevention/governor?content=%2fbook%2f4650%2fchapter-abstract%2f146813715%3fredirectedFrom%3dfulltext}}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Taylor | first=B.D. | title=The Code of Putinism | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2018 | isbn=978-0-19-086734-8 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=DftdDwAAQBAJ}}
*::::::::::::<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Some of us are doing basic research. Some of us can also read Russian and have access to a bigger pool of sources. I do not think anyone argues that Putin should not be called a dictator in the body of the article. We are now discussing the lede, where the definition of Putin as a dictator has again been added by an editor who does not participate at the talk page but has warnings about disruptive editing in contentious topics. ] (]) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@] I have reverted the addition of the term "dictator". Have served them with Contentious topic notice at their TP. They already had Balkans & Eastern Europe notice served once, so BLP this time. This isn't the first time this addition by the user has been reverted. They were even pinged here to come and discuss but they are just refusing to engage. ] & ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Thanks. I would have just blocked them but I am obviously involved. ] (]) 08:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Ohhhh I though you were arguing to remove the term from the lead. Was not aware it was a second addition of the term. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I am indeed arguing that whereas the presented argumentation is sufficient to keep the term in the article (and even to write a paragraph about it), it is possibly not sufficient to use it in the lede. ] (]) 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}Not sure what your saying - is your suggestion we remove the term entirely from the article? ....its been in the lead and article for many years. Do we have any sources that indicate there is any debate on its usage? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, I object to the definition of putin in the first paragraph of the article as a Russian politician (president) and dictator. This definition has not been there for years. It was repeatedly added by GreatLeader1945, who is a disruptive editor on their way to topic ban, and every time quickly reverted. ] (]) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] noone is advocating to remove it from the body of the article. The purpose of this thread is about the repeated addition of the word "dictator" by an editor, who even after so many reverts and warning continues to add it. And it is not related to any other part of the article but only from the lede (i.e. the very first line, the introductory line of the article). ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::That makes much more sense. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:59, 6 January 2025

    Skip to table of contents
    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Putin article.
    This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
    Article policies
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
    Warning: active arbitration remedies

    The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

    • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

    Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    This page is not a forum for general discussion about Vladimir Putin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vladimir Putin at the Reference desk.
    Former good article nomineeVladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    April 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
    August 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
    In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004, March 3, 2008, September 24, 2008, and March 5, 2012.
    On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2020.
    Current status: Former good article nominee
    This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
    This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
    WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconRussia: Sports & games / Politics and law Top‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
    To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
    TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
    WikiProject iconSoviet Union Top‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
    TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
    Section sizes
    Section size for Vladimir Putin (68 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 21,233 21,233
    Early life 4,928 12,162
    Education 7,234 7,234
    Intelligence career 13,135 13,135
    Political career 190 197,783
    1990–1996: Saint Petersburg administration 5,252 5,252
    1996–1998: Early Moscow career 5,425 5,425
    1998-1999: Director of FSB 1,734 1,734
    1999: First premiership 3,356 3,356
    1999–2000: Acting presidency 6,198 6,198
    2000–2004: First presidential term 5,020 5,020
    2004–2008: Second presidential term 20,749 20,749
    2008–2012: Second premiership 4,594 4,594
    2012–2018: Third presidential term 17,930 47,427
    Annexation of Crimea 14,292 14,292
    Intervention in Syria 4,155 4,155
    Russia's interference in the 2016 US election 11,050 11,050
    2018–2024: Fourth presidential term 11,984 85,610
    COVID-19 pandemic 12,566 12,566
    Constitutional referendum and amendments 4,380 4,380
    Iran trade deal 934 934
    2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis 7,958 7,958
    Full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) 34,652 34,652
    ICC arrest warrant 4,755 4,755
    2023 Wagner rebellion 8,381 8,381
    2024–present: Fifth presidential term 12,228 12,228
    Domestic policies 9,049 51,653
    Economic, industrial, and energy policies 9,878 9,878
    Environmental policy 3,913 3,913
    Religious policy 4,360 4,360
    Military development 6,988 6,988
    Human rights policy 5,233 5,233
    The media 3,963 3,963
    Promoting conservatism 6,900 6,900
    International sporting events 1,369 1,369
    Foreign policy 3,126 81,552
    Asia 9,706 9,706
    Post-Soviet states 20,094 20,094
    United States, Western Europe, and NATO 21,345 21,345
    United Kingdom 1,252 6,195
    Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko 2,666 2,666
    Poisoning of Sergei Skripal 2,277 2,277
    Latin America 2,579 2,579
    Australia and the South Pacific 3,739 3,739
    Middle East and Africa 14,768 14,768
    Public image 226 35,573
    Polls and rankings 24,662 24,662
    Cult of personality 5,833 5,833
    Public recognition in the West 3,510 3,510
    Putinisms 1,342 1,342
    Assessments 16,380 21,734
    After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine 5,354 5,354
    Electoral history 2,395 2,395
    Personal life 20 45,122
    Family 14,147 14,147
    Wealth 10,831 10,831
    Residences 19 7,611
    Official government residences 1,538 1,538
    Personal residences 6,054 6,054
    Pets 1,011 1,011
    Religion 2,873 2,873
    Sports 4,536 4,536
    Health 4,093 4,093
    Awards and honours 605 605
    Explanatory notes 43 43
    References 44 530
    Sources 486 486
    External links 6,466 6,466
    Total 489,986 489,986
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 25,808,228 views.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

    This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 77 million views since December 2007.

    Lede image

    @Nick.mon -- thoughts on what the portrait of him should be? I feel the version you reverted to has slightly unnatural coloration. Cheers! JayCubby Talk 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    @JayCubby: Hi! IMHO the other version was not centered. In my view we could crop "your" version and use that, if it's true that it has a higher resolution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    Alright, I'll upload a recropped version in a few. Cheers! JayCubby 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    "Dictator"

    Not neutral, doesn't follow manual of style.

    Also, associated account is likely a troll account, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:GreatLeader1945/ 195.224.87.165 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    Taken care of. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    Is he a dictator or isn't he?

    First line of Bashar Al Assad's article: "Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) is a Syrian politician and dictator who has been the 19th and current president of Syria since 2000."

    First line of Putin's article: "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who has served as President of Russia since 2012, having previously served from 2000 to 2008."

    Later on: "Under Putin's rule, the Russian political system has been transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship with a personality cult."

    How can one rule a dictatorship without being a dictator? And if he is one, then why is it acceptable to list that in Assad's article but not here, or vice versa? Which is correct? Adonnus (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    To name Putin as a dictator you would need to show that the preponderance of independent reliable sources refer to him as a dictator. I believe that is the case with Assad. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that most sources call him that, because.....reasons. Probably because Russia is a world power and Syria is not. Trump's opponents say he will be a dictator but we don't name him one because most sources don't. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    How many exactly do we need for it to be considered a "preponderance"? Is there an exact number? How many reliable sources which do versus reliable sources that don't are required, or what is the ratio? Adonnus (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't give you a specific number. Obviously you can't survey every possible source on this planet, but you should at least be able to show that a wide variety of news outlets and perhaps scholarly sources like academic journals refer to Putin as a "dictator". I think most sources refer to him as "President" because he is "elected"(yes, in rigged elections with token and approved opposition). Most dictators, if they have elections at all, do it as a yes/no question with supervision of the voters(i.e. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam). 331dot (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    @GreatLeader1945 you are advised not to add anything controversial in the article. You have been reverted more than once. Please discuss, cite reliable sources and gain consensus before adding anything. Thank you. ShaanSengupta 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Easily sourced......and is so on every related pages that have gone through many talks. If editors are not familiar with the topic they should at least do some minimal research before posting.
    Should add to the body

    Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has been described as an authoritarian dictatorship. Putin's policies are generally referred to as Putinism.

    what is being talked about in this case - is has Russia, that has a "dictator" moved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism?

    References

    1. Kjell Engelbrekt; Bertil Nygren, eds. (2014). Russia and Europe: Building Bridges, Digging Trenches. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-99200-1. Archived from the original on 13 August 2023. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
    2. Kiyan, Olga (9 April 2020). "Russia & Democratic Backsliding: The Future of Putinism". Harvard International Review. Harvard International Relations Council. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 8 July 2022.
    3. Kuzio, Taras (2016). "Nationalism and authoritarianism in Russia". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 49 (1). University of California Press: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.002. JSTOR 48610429.
    4. Fischer, Sabine (2022). Russia on the road to dictatorship: Internal political repercussions of the attack on Ukraine. SWP Comment (Report). doi:10.18449/2022C30. hdl:10419/256753. Archived from the original on 11 September 2022. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
    5. Brian D. Taylor (2018). The Code of Putinism. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–7. ISBN 978-0-19-086731-7. OCLC 1022076734.
    6. Kolesnikov, Andrei; Kolesnikov, Andrei. "Putin's War Has Moved Russia From Authoritarianism to Hybrid Totalitarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    7. "Masha Gessen is wrong to call Russia a totalitarian state" – via The Economist.
    8. Niclas Spanel (14 September 2022). How authoritarian is Russia? Analysis of the form of rule from Lenin until Putin. GRIN Verlag. p. 1. ISBN 978-3-346-72357-4.
    9. "How Russians are protesting the war in Ukraine from a totalitarian state". May 23, 2022.

    Moxy🍁 16:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Not sure what your saying - is your suggestion we remove the term entirely from the article? ....its been in the lead and article for many years. Do we have any sources that indicate there is any debate on its usage? Moxy🍁 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    No, I object to the definition of putin in the first paragraph of the article as a Russian politician (president) and dictator. This definition has not been there for years. It was repeatedly added by GreatLeader1945, who is a disruptive editor on their way to topic ban, and every time quickly reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Moxy noone is advocating to remove it from the body of the article. The purpose of this thread is about the repeated addition of the word "dictator" by an editor, who even after so many reverts and warning continues to add it. And it is not related to any other part of the article but only from the lede (i.e. the very first line, the introductory line of the article). Shaan Sengupta 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That makes much more sense. Moxy🍁 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: